You posted:
"It was questionable BEFORE the Avast buyout. I'd downgrade it to "laughable" at this point."
Unfortunately, I cannot remember all the firewall settings. But it is easy enough... just set all firewall settings to a maximum level.Can you elaborate on which Firewall setting require manual changes please?
Possibly you're referring to the test published on Overview Of Techniques And Attacks In Windows 11 » AVLab Cybersecurity Foundation
It is except for prolific downloaders and exploits. With a kernel or application exploit malicious files can be downloaded and run without Smart Screen making a peep. Banking trojans are traditionally delivered via weaponized Office documents and exploits. Smart Screen does not protect in those cases.
Maximum settings in the firewall doesn't generate false positives. Usability is not affected.
The Norton firewall is easily bypassed via scriptors that abuse processes that Norton rates as "Safe."
Why spend your money on something if you are not going to use it to its full potential? Obviously there are those here that want to use Norton at maximum settings. Why does that bother you so much? Why do you care how others choose to use it?
Yes, Norton has good protection at stopping network attacks. Nevertheless, remember that payload and revTCP in Metasploit is easy to detect for any vendor. Nevertheless, it's always a good way to check something other than the method-deliver-malware-sociotechnique.Some, but not all; SONAR and AMSI are not absolute protections.
There's some misunderstanding going on here. I've already explained that. I said "to get the most out of it (the firewall)." I also said for prolific downloaders and in the case of exploits. The default firewall behavior is default allow for ALL Microsoft processes, which is hardly optimal for security. I'm not going to deep dive into how to harden a firewall for outbound connections. There's lots of resources out there to use as a guide.
What happens to boot persistence regarding the behavioral aspect of the detection? Does Norton holds all untrusted in check until net is established or does it let it pass? That could be it's weak point when dealing with a valid decryptor that decrypts a payload during boot.The only thing I don't like so much about Norton is that it is highly dependent on the Internet, even the Behavioral Blocking support site says that without an Internet connection it doesn't work. From this point on, Bitdefender for me is the best because it has a high rate of offline detection, but other than that, Norton is excellent, there's nothing to complain about
Business individuals. You and your coworker are on a plane. The plane wifi is non existent, your coworker wants to transfer his presentation so you can work on it. He gives you their USBBut who uses the computer these days without internet connection? And without internet it is impossible for you to be infected, unless you downloaded malware on another connected computer and put it on a pendrive to infect yours that is off
Why is it so difficult for you to not accept other people's opinions and disregard other security softwares/microsoft products etc! If everything is so bad, perhaps we can have a Furyo OS and/or a Furyo internet security suite?
I never said that there was anything bad about Norton. I could care less what others think, but whenever someone posts an inaccurate or false fact, then I am going to respond. This thread is a perfect example of fanbois getting upset and derailing the discussion.
I was offered a very good deal today. Norton 360 Deluxe 5 devices one year for 9.3$, so I bought this package. Now it will be this one that I am going to test outI am now trying out Norton Security on one machine
